The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post Reply
AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:23 pm

Since the last clauses of both of these verses (Matt 5;32; 19:9) are identical to the last clause of Luke 16:18, which does not possess the exception, how could the meaning of the last clause in Matthew's verses hinge on the exception clause while Luke 16:18 has the same last clause and therefore its meaning cannot hinge on it?

The above reasoning, which I make to bring to attention the extreme deficiency of the divorce for adultery model (the exception of "fornication" made by Jesus having been changed to the divorce for adultery) is only one point of many that can be used to wake up the sleeping.

Let's look at Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Notice the last clause:
"and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery". (Luke 16:18)
The same last clause is in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, both which also have the exception clause:
"and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". (Matt 5:32)
"and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery". (Matt 19:9)
All three identical last clauses point to a specific wrong the man does who marries “her that is divorced”. He commits adultery by so doing.
Since the divorce for adultery model has changed the exception, from fornication to adultery, a question is naturally asked as the result since the divorce for adultery model creates a distinction between two post marital divorces: one supposed to be just (for adultery under that model) and one unjust (let’s say for burning dinner). The question is then created, to whom does the last clause pertain, to the wife divorced for adultery or the wife divorced for burning dinner?
But Luke 16:18 does not have the exception clause therefore the question does not exist. It appears plainly since there is no exception clause in his gospel, the last clause cannot be making a distinction between two wives divorced for different things.
So lets say the decision is made (under the confidence that changing the divorce of fornication to the divorce for adultery was in fact a correct thing to do), that since Luke does not have the exception clause and yet has the same last clause that therefore the last clause in all 3 references must pertain to any post marital divorce, both just and unjust.

Well that simply does not fit with the context of Matt 19:9
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
The natural effect of the meaning of the exception clause in the above verse is that marrying another afterward is in fact NOT adultery. (This is grammatically correct under both models; under the model assuming that the word fornication is correctly changed to adultery, and under the model that fornication is not adultery).
So under that adultery model, after the man has divorced his wife for adultery he is absolutely free to marry another and it is not adultery to do so. This by itself shows that the last clause in all three cannot be pertaining to ANY divorced woman. This is because the woman divorced justly (under that model divorce for adultery being just) is off limits; whoever marries her commits adultery by so doing! Against what man is that man committing adultery, by marrying that woman?
Well of course the man who divorced her!
It is impossible for the man to be free to marry (it being not adultery to marry after divorcing for adultery) and at the same time whoever marries the woman he divorced commits adultery! She has to have a living lawful husband in order for the man who marries her to be charged with committing adultery. The only way to justify such a thing is to assert that a kind of allowable polygamy has been introduced by the NT.

So that doesn’t work. Let’s try the other choice: the last clause pertains to the woman divorced unjustly.
That will work for Matt 19:9 as far as the man goes, since the grammatical function of the exception clause would indicate (as it does under both models) that the divorce which is not allowed makes the man an adulterer if he marries afterward. But the last clause still cannot be agreed to, even by those trying to promote that the last clause must pertain to the woman divorced unjustly. This is because they are then forced to admit that even though she is the innocent party, she cannot get married because it is adultery according to the last clauses!!!
Choosing the unjustly divorced woman as who the last clause refers to (under that model ) also creates the same conflict according to Matt 5:32.
The grammatical function of 5:32 indicates that the woman divorced for unjustly (under both models) IS caused to commit adultery by being so divorced. Her husband who divorced her has caused her to commit adultery. The last clause then, when applied to the divorce for adultery model AGAIN makes the innocent woman off limits to any man who would marry her. Whoever marries her commits adultery.

The straightforward grammatical function of both 5:32 and 19:9 irrefutably places the unjustly divorced woman off limits. This goes for both models. The reason why that truth is offensive to the adultery model is because that model has created a kind of acceptable judgment that the man can perform against the wife for committing adultery. So a human conflict issue has been created where fairness and just payback one human against another becomes an acceptable issue. Once that perception has been created by misunderstanding the exception of fornication to mean that the divorce for adultery is acceptable, then the inconsistency that the innocent divorced wife cannot get married again is simply not acceptable. A huge contradictory inconsistency has been created.
But since Jesus was not allowing a man to divorce his wife for adultery or anything else, and therefore he is not setting a precedent for such behavior, then his basis for not allowing any divorce due to the fact that only death can terminate a marriage, as per the precedent set in Adam and Eve, the last clause becomes perfectly consistent.

So the last clause CANNOT pertain solely to the woman divorced for adultery under their model because 19:9 directly disagrees, necessitating the justification of a form of NT polygamy.
And the last clause CANNOT pertain to the unjustly divorced woman (under that model) because then the innocent woman is unjustly discriminated against by God.
Please, someone out there trying to justify the interpretation that Jesus allows divorce for adultery: what possible meaning can you attribute to the last clauses of 5:32 19:9 and 16:18?

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter;

Divorce from a lawfully joined marriage is not permitted under the NT. Not for adultery, not for something worse than adultery, not for anything:

Luke 16:
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Mark 10:
11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Last edited by AVoice on Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

steve7150
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve7150 » Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:29 pm

Divorce from a lawfully joined marriage is not permitted under the NT. Not for adultery, not for something worse than adultery, not for anything:






God divorced Israel for adultery, would he give us a higher standard then for himself?

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:11 pm

steve7150 wrote:Divorce from a lawfully joined marriage is not permitted under the NT. Not for adultery, not for something worse than adultery, not for anything:






God divorced Israel for adultery, would he give us a higher standard then for himself?
So a man may allegorically divorce a wife whom he has allegorically married?

Are you suggesting that if God chose to use allegory as a means of making a spiritual lesson, that the tools he uses to parallel his own behaviour, when applied not allegorically, automatically becomes permissible behaviour for us because he does not "give us a higher standard than for himself"?

Should I by such extrapolation be allowed to have two wives?

Ez 23:
2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:
3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.
4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations;
37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.

steve7150
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve7150 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:34 am

So a man may allegorically divorce a wife whom he has allegorically married?

Are you suggesting that if God chose to use allegory as a means of making a spiritual lesson, that the tools he uses to parallel his own behaviour, when applied not allegorically, automatically becomes permissible behaviour for us because he does not "give us a higher standard than for himself"?





Where does it say God allegorically married Israel? Even if it were an "allegorical" marriage (whatever that is) or a spiritual marriage does that make it less important or less binding?
Did God allegorically divorce Israel too?

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:54 pm

steve7150 wrote: Where does it say God allegorically married Israel? Even if it were an "allegorical" marriage (whatever that is) or a spiritual marriage does that make it less important or less binding?
Did God allegorically divorce Israel too?
Obviously it was not an actual man-woman literal marriage, about which this thread is about. God's word uses the marriage divorce reality allegorically (in that section you refer to) to reflect a similar reality but not the identical reality. Yes, the divorce was also not a real man-woman divorce, so yes the divorce about which you refer is only allegorical.

The thread is about straightforward direct scriptures relating to what the NT teaches on real actual marriage. Your point using 'marriage' and 'divorce' from the OT as it is used allegorically there concerning God 'marrying' and 'divorcing' Israel is not appropriate to the points made in the OP.
I have answered your questions yet you ignored the main point made by the OP and appears you did not even read the OP. You also have not cared to answer my questions I asked in the last post.
Please respond in an appropriate manner; or is it that you have no intention of conducting a responsible and respectful discussion?
Please be upfront concerning your intention.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3344
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve » Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:59 pm

Obviously it was not an actual man-woman literal marriage, about which this thread is about. God's word uses the marriage divorce reality allegorically (in that section you refer to) to reflect a similar reality but not the identical reality. Yes, the divorce was also not a real man-woman divorce, so yes the divorce about which you refer is only allegorical.
The marriage of God to Israel was not allegorical. It was a binding covenant, as is marriage between a man and a woman is. In fact, God's covenant with His people is set forth as the pattern for the respective marriage roles of a man and a woman. God's marriage is intended to be the model of our marriages. This is why God made human marriage—viz., to be a reflection of this reality (Eph.5:22-32). Though Ephesians is in the New Testament, it quotes Genesis 2:24 in order to tell us what marriage was meant, by God, to depict.
The thread is about straightforward direct scriptures relating to what the NT teaches on real actual marriage. Your point using 'marriage' and 'divorce' from the OT as it is used allegorically there concerning God 'marrying' and 'divorcing' Israel is not appropriate to the points made in the
OP.

In case you had not heard, the specific meaning of the New Testament verses about divorce and remarriage are a matter of controversy, for the very reason that the few relevant statements about these subjects are not as straightforward or direct as we might wish. There are vague features of these verses, which Christians of good will have struggled to understand properly. This vagueness is either because the New Testament writers had no interest in giving unambiguous instruction on this vital subject, or else because they assumed their readers/hearers already possessed a basic grasp of what marriage is supposed to be, based upon what was previously revealed the Old Testament.

When Jesus was asked about divorce, He did not answer without reference to the Old Testament, as you would like for us to do. He said, "Have you not read...?" He expected his listeners to have some prior understanding of marriage (and, consequently, of divorce) arising from the things God had previously revealed. Likewise, when Paul spoke on this, he also assumed that his readers were acquainted with these Old Testament ethics (e.g., Romans 7:1-2).

To take the few verses in the New Testament that speak directly (though not clearly) to the question, and to ignore the Old Testament revelation on the topic, would be like trying to understand the concept of the Messiah using only New Testament references, and ignoring the rich Old Testament revelation that defined the subject.

To try to exclude from consideration the Old Testament concepts of "covenant" while seeking to understand the specific covenant of marriage would be a monumental mistake. Similarly, to ignore God's behavior in a covenantal relationship that He regarded to be the model for human marriage would be to deprive ourselves of the most important element in understanding that subject.

I appreciate your interest in being true to the New Testament verses on this important subject, but if you are going to become impatient when we insist that they be seen in their whole-Bible context, then you will find yourself very frustrated here.

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:06 am

steve wrote:
Obviously it was not an actual man-woman literal marriage, about which this thread is about. God's word uses the marriage divorce reality allegorically (in that section you refer to) to reflect a similar reality but not the identical reality. Yes, the divorce was also not a real man-woman divorce, so yes the divorce about which you refer is only allegorical.
The marriage of God to Israel was not allegorical. It was a binding covenant, as is marriage between a man and a woman is. In fact, God's covenant with His people is set forth as the pattern for the respective marriage roles of a man and a woman. God's marriage is intended to be the model of our marriages. This is why God made human marriage—viz., to be a reflection of this reality (Eph.5:22-32). Though Ephesians is in the New Testament, it quotes Genesis 2:24 in order to tell us what marriage was meant, by God, to depict.
The thread is about straightforward direct scriptures relating to what the NT teaches on real actual marriage. Your point using 'marriage' and 'divorce' from the OT as it is used allegorically there concerning God 'marrying' and 'divorcing' Israel is not appropriate to the points made in the
OP.

In case you had not heard, the specific meaning of the New Testament verses about divorce and remarriage are a matter of controversy, for the very reason that the few relevant statements about these subjects are not as straightforward or direct as we might wish. There are vague features of these verses, which Christians of good will have struggled to understand properly. This vagueness is either because the New Testament writers had no interest in giving unambiguous instruction on this vital subject, or else because they assumed their readers/hearers already possessed a basic grasp of what marriage is supposed to be, based upon what was previously revealed the Old Testament.

When Jesus was asked about divorce, He did not answer without reference to the Old Testament, as you would like for us to do. He said, "Have you not read...?" He expected his listeners to have some prior understanding of marriage (and, consequently, of divorce) arising from the things God had previously revealed. Likewise, when Paul spoke on this, he also assumed that his readers were acquainted with these Old Testament ethics (e.g., Romans 7:1-2).

To take the few verses in the New Testament that speak directly (though not clearly) to the question, and to ignore the Old Testament revelation on the topic, would be like trying to understand the concept of the Messiah using only New Testament references, and ignoring the rich Old Testament revelation that defined the subject.

To try to exclude from consideration the Old Testament concepts of "covenant" while seeking to understand the specific covenant of marriage would be a monumental mistake. Similarly, to ignore God's behavior in a covenantal relationship that He regarded to be the model for human marriage would be to deprive ourselves of the most important element in understanding that subject.

I appreciate your interest in being true to the New Testament verses on this important subject, but if you are going to become impatient when we insist that they be seen in their whole-Bible context, then you will find yourself very frustrated here.
I assure you I am not ignoring OT references concerning marriage. But trying to equate that whatever God expresses in allegory, (he being not flesh and blood and he not having a singular flesh and blood wife) that that is what we may also do is not sound doctrine, as the other Steve suggested, otherwise we could all have two wives. Straightforward literal things like marriage when used allegorically are often done so to convey a truth the author intends to project by the application he is making in regard to that literal truth. Referring to God marrying Israel is inappropriate with regard to the straightforward questions and concerns in the OP.
The law is good if a man use it lawfully. Jesus revealed the truth concerning marriage. The truth is very clearly and exhaustively laid out in the discourse of Mark 10:2-12. Any basic question concerning marriage and divorce can be answered there.
The hang-up with modern Christianity is their misunderstanding that the exception clause had to relate to divorce for adultery. The strongest evidence that the exception clauses in Matthew DO NOT refer to adultery is found in those very verses!!
Obviously you are a busy man, Steve, get someone you trust is sound, to answer the concerns in the OP.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3344
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:56 am

I have written on this already. Feel free to respond to my points. http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_divorce.html

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:34 pm

steve wrote:I have written on this already. Feel free to respond to my points. http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_divorce.html

The following two quotes are from the page you linked me to:

"(if your favorite objection has been omitted, please send it in for our consideration and response)"
________________________________________
________________________________________
"Unjustified divorce and the remarriage of the guilty party:

“Spouse A” (a professing Christian) divorces “Spouse B” without justification and remarries. What should “Spouse A” do, if repentant? Can “Spouse B” remarry?

Analysis:

My understanding of Scripture would be that “Spouse B” can remarry. “Spouse A” has wrongfully remarried, which is adultery. Thus “Spouse B” has biblical grounds for freedom from that marriage and for remarriage."
________________________________________


This analysis does not fit with the actual words that Jesus used.
In the OP (please read the OP), the question is asked; what woman does the last clause in Matt 5:32; 19:9 Luke 16:18 pertain to; the woman divorced unjustly, the woman divorced for adultery, (“justly” under the divorce for adultery model), or both?
The above answer you gave, (by a process of elimination), is appointing the last clause to pertain to the woman divorced for adultery (the woman divorced ‘justly’ under the divorce for adultery model).
This creates some uncomfortable questions that the divorce for adultery advocates are forced to answer, which they cannot satisfactorily answer, if the actual words Jesus used are respected as trustworthy.

Above you refer to “our consideration and response”. As I stated earlier, I realize you are very busy so I asked if someone you deem as sound could actually read the OP and attend to my concerns.
At the very least, this should be a good exercise of senses for someone willing to engage in the conversation. At the best, the good folks involved in your ministry will come to understand the simplicity that is in Christ concerning this very important doctrine and will actually become confident and assured of the truth of the old solemn phrase: “till death do us part”.

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:38 pm

The entire battle over whether or not Jesus allowed divorce for adultery is determined by this question: was the exception clause “essential” or “non essential”


Consider the following grammatical example, which is similar in construction to Matt 5:31,32:

It hath been said, that under the OT, the day of rest or “Sabbath” was on Sunday.
But I say unto you, that whosoever does not acknowledge that Sabbaths under the OT were to be on Saturday, saving for the feast Sabbaths, stands in opposition to what the OT Sabbath law commanded.


Concerning this grammatical example:

Something done; "whosoever does not acknowledge that Sabbaths under the OT were to be on Saturday"

The negative effect of that action; "stands in opposition to what the OT Sabbath law commanded"

An exception clause in the middle indicating that in that case the negative effect is not caused; "saving for the feast Sabbaths"



Who can figure out how the above statements about the OT Sabbath relate to the discussion of what Matt 5:31,32 means? What do the two "saving' or 'exception" clauses have in common? How many similarities in construction about the Sabbath can be paralleled with Matt 5:31,32? [The last clause of Matt 5;32 is left out because the focus is being made on the first 3 clauses of verse 32].

Now lets look at Matt 5:31,32
Matt 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:

Concerning Matt 5:32:

Something done; "whosoever shall put away his wife"

The negative effect of that action; "causeth her to commit adultery"

An exception clause in the middle indicating that in that case the negative effect is not caused; "saving for the cause of fornication"


[The complete scriptural verses again including the last clause of 32:
Matt 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.]



A point that is not directly related to a topic under discussion can be inserted as a relatively unimportant addition into a sentence. Such an addition can come in the form of an "exception clause". An unmistakable characteristic of such an addition to a sentence is that it may be omitted entirely from the sentence without affecting the overall main point being made. The main topic in the above example concerning Sabbaths is the weekly Saturday Sabbaths, as established in the first sentence (paralleled to Mt 5:31). Yet because there were other types of Sabbaths, (the middle of the week feast Sabbaths), these types of Sabbaths NOT under discussion could be referred to as a side-point in the form of an exception clause and still be a reasonable addition. When omitting such an indirectly related addition to a sentence, the sentence still carries its intended main meaning. No damage to the direct meaning being transmitted has occurred. When such an omission that causes no damage can be done, that is evidence that the portion omitted may be a "non essential" part of the sentence. This does not mean it carries no meaning or purpose or that it was wrongly included in the sentence: "Non essential" is simply a linguistic descriptive term.

The facts that in the first century the terms "wife", "husband" and "put away" (divorce) were used in relation to the betrothed couple as well as to the couple joined in marriage, opens the door wide open for the exception clause to be reasonably read as pertaining to that Bible-culture "premarital divorce" for fornication (not adultery) which Joseph was about to do to Mary. See Matt 1:18-24 and Deut 22:23,24 "wife" "virgin" "betrothed". This makes the exception clause completely available to be read as a "non essential" part of the sentence. It was reasonably added, though not directly related to the topic at hand, which topic was the divorce of the joined-in-marriage, (Matt 5:31; Dt 24:1-4).

If it can be agreed that the 'exception clause' in the grammatical example concerning the Sabbaths can be read as "non essential", then it must also be agreed that the exception clause in Matt 5:32 also can be read as "non essential".

The "non essential" in the above example concerning Sabbaths, is expressed by way of an exception clause and can be omitted. The same is true of the exception clause of Matt 5:32 and 19:9. Since the exception clause was "non essential" (because it was only a side-point referring to the indirectly related premarital divorce for fornication, not for adultery), the Holy Spirit through Mark and Luke could exclude it entirely since it did not pertain to the married state anyway.

Notice how the exception clauses in both cases, when omitted, change nothing of major importance:

It hath been said, that under the OT, the day of rest or “Sabbath” was on Sunday. But I say unto you, that whosoever does not acknowledge that Sabbaths under the OT were to be on Saturday, stands in opposition to what the OT Sabbath law commanded.

Matt 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, causeth her to commit adultery:

The extreme confusion the divorce-for-adultery folks face in the texts of 5:32 and 19:9 is the result of mistaking the exception clause as “essential”. When mistaking a “non essential” for “essential”, confusion is a common result. Their whole thrust is to assert that the exception clause is absolutely essential and hence if anyone were to exclude it (their assuming that it absolutely has to refer to adultery) that person is certainly speaking falsely.

The following things being called for by Christians world-wide would indicate a return to soundness in this extremely important doctrine:
· A return to the straightforward apparent meaning of Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor 7:39
· The abandonment of misguided efforts to show that divorce is allowed under the NT
· Educating Christians concerning the exception/saving clause in Matt 5:32; 19:9
· Abandoning the damnable heresy that Jesus allows hardness of hearts
· The cessation of contradicting Jesus, who clearly commanded that man is not to put asunder what God has joined together

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”